Re: TUT- Maybe this is the Source

[Guest guest]

A HIT jedi reading a resource by a couple of Russian strength

scientists. It's still nonsense, but at least it's a start!

Plisk

Yale University

New Haven, CT

---

ironny two wrote:

> <<Time is money. Space is money. Giving members the

> results they want in less time frees up space and

> allows you to do more business. "

>

> By Matt Brzycki>>

>

> which included the following paragraph:

>

> <<How many repetitions?

>

> A muscle must be exercised for a certain amount of

> time to increase in size and strength. Optimal time

> frames are about 90 to 120 seconds for the buttocks,

> 60 to 90 seconds for the rest of the lower body and 40

> to 70 seconds for the upper torso.(6)>>

>

> and when looking for reference 6, I found it to be:

>

> <<6. Verkhoshansky, Y (1991) Ultra mass manual.

> Pleasant Hill, CA: Atletika,Inc. >>

>

> this article appeared in :

>

> Vol.13, No 7, pp.31-32. Copyright June 1997, Fitness

> Management Magazine, Los Angeles, Calif.

[Guest guest]

Dr. Siff wrote:

> [Yes, it would appear as if this is where those gurus obtained

> those TUT figures. Note, however, that this manual provides no

> research references at all, so that the figures referring to muscle

> action times are nowhere to be found or substantiated. Even if they

> were, the simplistic model of TUT totally omits the importance of

> imposing a certain minimal tension for a given time (see the

> " Files " section of Supertraining for my critique of the TUT concept at:

>

> Supertraining/files

>

> For example, many leg muscles are exposed to high TUT

> in distance runners, so that they should exhibit great

> hypertrophy of these muscles, which is not the case. The

> concept of TUT needs much more elaboration before it can

> be accepted as training principle. Also, in the TUT for

> novices is very different from that of elite bodybuilders

> in enhancing hypertrophy.]

Mel,

This got me thinking last night- if there's a minimal threshold

tension, could there not be a minimal time component as well? It

would seem like there would be, probably as a function of the tension

generated.

Does this seem like a reasonable concept, or am I just letting my

fantasizing get out of control again?

[The fact that many Weightlifters develop great hypertrophy via the

use of very few repetitions of brief actions would appear to militate

against this idea. Research shows that the average number of reps done

by former USSR lifters was 2.1 and that most repetitions last for less

than a second. So, if time is a factor, then it would appear to be less

than 1 second in duration. There are other factors, such as total work

done in a repetition or mean power, which may be more important.

So far, nobody knows. Mel Siff[

man

Birmingham, AL

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff:

<The fact that many Weightlifters develop great hypertrophy via the

use of very few repetitions of brief actions would appear to

militate against this idea. Research shows that the average number of reps

done by former USSR lifters was 2.1 and that most repetitions last for

less than a second. So, if time is a factor, then it would appear to be

less than 1 second in duration. There are other factors, such as total

work done in a repetition or mean power, which may be more important.

So far, nobody knows.>

**FWIW, I've found one IART TUT idea *exceedingly* useful when it comes to my

own training for hypertrophy/strength...essentially, the notion is simply:

1) Take your 1RM max for a given exercise,

2) when recovered, do as many controlled reps as possible with 80% of 1RM,

3) note the number of reps done with said exercise, and use this as a ballpark

figure for the number of reps you should *usually* use for a given exercise...

Only when testing myself thus did I discover, for example, that my pecs are far

more FT (fast twitch) than my delts/tris, and should be trained in the 4-6 rep

range rather

than 10-12 as my delts/tris require... since applying this info, my pecs (which

I used to train in the conventional " hypertrophy " range of 8-12 reps with

mediocre results) have improved considerably...

[What is IART, by the way? Estimation of fibre types according to this scheme

is very crude, to say the

least, even if (I think) it was Dr Bosco who first suggested trying it. Mel

Siff]

Kirsner

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest guest]

" powermandler " <burningstar@s...> wrote:

> Mel, -- This got me thinking last night- if there's a minimal threshold

> tension, could there not be a minimal time component as well? It

> would seem like there would be, probably as a function of the tension

> generated.

>

> Does this seem like a reasonable concept, or am I just letting my

> fantasizing get out of control again?

Mel Siff:

<The fact that many Weightlifters develop great hypertrophy via the

use of very few repetitions of brief actions would appear to

militate against this idea. Research shows that the average number of reps

done by former USSR lifters was 2.1 and that most repetitions last for

less than a second. So, if time is a factor, then it would appear to be

less than 1 second in duration. There are other factors, such as total

work done in a repetition or mean power, which may be more important.

So far, nobody knows.>

** Hmm-- very interesting. By total work, I'm assuming you're referring

to the force*distance definition-- and I could see how that would be

of importance. What catches my attention is the mean power, and I think

that is what I was trying to get at-- tension (or in work, in this

case) wrt to time involved.

[Not really, because we cannot apply that simple Force*distance definition

of work in situations where the force is changing. I would prefer to work in

terms of work as a measure of the energy processes involved. Mel Siff]

Higher tensions could possibly have a lower " threshold time " than

lower tensions performed for longer rep ranges. So, for example, a

loading at 90% 1RM may have a " requisite time " of only 1-2 seconds,

whereas at 75% 1RM, the time needed may be much longer.

[This would not really relate directly to the mass being used, but to the

force involved. Even a light load moved with a high acceleration can

produce great force. Of course, this has some interesting implications for

those who talk simplistically about TUT - what happens if you do ballistic

'bicep' curls or tricep push-downs for more than 40 seconds? How does

that compare with the same exrcises done slowly for the same period with

a heavier load? I posed this same question on several lists several years

ago, but never received any convincing reponse to it. Mel Siff]

Though, now that I think on it, it seems more a matter of semantics

than anything since the same factors are being expressed.

[No, this would not simply a matter of semantics, but the foundation for

some far deeper analysis of what really happens biomechanically when

any strength exercise is carried out repetitively. Let's see if other list

members are willing to take these ruminations any further. Mel Siff]

man

Birmingham, AL

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff asked:

<What is IART, by the way? >

** http://www.i-a-r-t.com

[ i.e., International Association of Resistance Trainers, a group whose

philosophy seems to be based largely on HIT and Arthur methods. MCS]

Kirsner

Los Angeles

[Guest guest]

Matt wrote:

> ** Hmm-- very interesting. By total work, I'm assuming you're

referring

> to the force*distance definition-- and I could see how that would

be

> of importance. What catches my attention is the mean power, and I

think

> that is what I was trying to get at-- tension (or in work, in this

> case) wrt to time involved.

>

> [Not really, because we cannot apply that simple Force*distance

definition

> of work in situations where the force is changing. I would prefer

to work in

> terms of work as a measure of the energy processes involved. Mel

Siff]

***Ah, I see what you're saying. That actually does make more sense

now that I think about it-- lol.

> Higher tensions could possibly have a lower " threshold time " than

> lower tensions performed for longer rep ranges. So, for example, a

> loading at 90% 1RM may have a " requisite time " of only 1-2 seconds,

> whereas at 75% 1RM, the time needed may be much longer.

>

> [This would not really relate directly to the mass being used, but

to the

> force involved. Even a light load moved with a high acceleration

can

> produce great force. Of course, this has some interesting

implications for

> those who talk simplistically about TUT - what happens if you do

ballistic

> 'bicep' curls or tricep push-downs for more than 40 seconds? How

does

> that compare with the same exrcises done slowly for the same period

with

> a heavier load? I posed this same question on several lists

several years

> ago, but never received any convincing reponse to it. Mel Siff]

***Ok, I see what you're saying here. So it basically falls down to

any technique that generates high tension, be it maximal weights, sub-

maximal weights lifted with high acceleration, or any of those

wonderful tricks that fall somewhere in between-- makes me wonder

what something like static-dynamic work or even plyometrics would do

if given sufficient time involvement.

In fact, the idea of using ballistic curls or tricep extension

movements is one I've toyed with before, though I'll admit its been a

more traditional approach.... I'd really like to see the effects

after trying them as you outlined.

I'm going to brainstorm on some of the ramifications of this--- I'd

imagine there's more than a few applications here.

> Though, now that I think on it, it seems more a matter of semantics

> than anything since the same factors are being expressed.

>

> [No, this would not simply a matter of semantics, but the

foundation for

> some far deeper analysis of what really happens biomechanically when

> any strength exercise is carried out repetitively. Let's see if

other list

> members are willing to take these ruminations any further. Mel

Siff]

***Yes, please do! I'd really love to hear everyone else's input-- I

think this is an absolutely fascinating topic, and one that has

promise for a wide range of applications.

Thanks to all,

man

Birmingham, AL

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

<This would not really relate directly to the mass being used, but to

the force involved. Even a light load moved with a high acceleration

can produce great force. >

** Yes, but for how long? By producing more muscle force earlier on in a

given exercise (as in a ballistic rep), doesn't it mean that we

necessarily reduce the muscle force as the movement continues, since

the faster the shortening velocity of the muscle, the greater the

number of myosin heads that will be sliding toward the next actin

site at any point in time and not generating tension?

[in my previous letter I provided information about the typical time spent in

ballistic weightlifting movements (usually less than one second). In unloaded

ballistic and explosive actions, as in martial arts or sprinting, the periods of

large force production are even much shorter. Note that force production during

the later stages of a ballistic movement does not even take place in the

so-called

antagonists, which create the initial propulsion right at the start of the

action -

the only later muscle action takes place in the " antagonists " to prevent joint

and

muscle injury, not in the " agonists " . This is how ballistic action is defined

(e.g. see Basmajian, " Muscles Alive " ). The argument that you presented is

commonly

used by several HIT Jedi who tend to confuse ballistic action and muscle

concontraction

or non-ballistic muscle action. So, what you wrote applies to the latter cases,

but not

the former. Mel Siff]

Back to the major issue. In applying so-called TUT methods, is it the time

taken per set

which is most important or the cumulative time spent under tension in many sets,

where

the sets can be weightlifting style 8-10 sets of 2 or 3 reps or bodybuilding

style with

fewer sets of more reps each? What explains why the weightlifting method also

manages

to increase muscle hypertrophy, when the TUT for a single rep and single sets is

so brief?

Muscle tension certainly is part of the puzzle, but there is clearly far more to

it

than simple time under tension. Any more offers? Mel Siff]

Gus Karageorgos

Toronto, Canada

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

> Back to the major issue. In applying so-called TUT methods, is it

the time taken per set

> which is most important or the cumulative time spent under tension

in many sets, where

> the sets can be weightlifting style 8-10 sets of 2 or 3 reps or

bodybuilding style with

> fewer sets of more reps each? What explains why the weightlifting

method also manages

> to increase muscle hypertrophy, when the TUT for a single rep and

single sets is so brief?

> Muscle tension certainly is part of the puzzle, but there is

clearly far more to it

> than simple time under tension. Any more offers? Mel Siff]

***What about the energetic pathways involved? 8-10 sets of 2-3 reps

is going to be largely alactic-anaerobic, while 2-3 sets of 8-10 reps

is going to be largely glycolytic-anaerobic-- could the metabolic

actions of these two pathways possibly play some role? I can remember

the section of Dr. Zatsiorsky's " Science and Practice of Strength

Training " regarding the theory of hypertrophy with regard to energy-

deficit-- lack of sufficient energy to maintain the balance between

protein anabolism and catabolism. Going by that idea, it is simply

lack of energy in the form of ATP that causes the muscular adaptation-

- this would fit right nicely in either the weightlifting method or

the bodybuilding method.

Also, fiber recruitment-- heavy, brief sets are also going to recruit

a lot more high-threshold MU's than lighter, longer sets, correct?

Since the highest-threshold units tend to be the easiest to fatigue

and following the same line of thought, grow, perhaps the

accumulation of fatigue in these higher-threshold motor units over

multiple sets is causing it?

Both of these would relate back to your point about TUT per set as

opposed to cumulative TUT. Maybe its a combination of these factors--

a specific pattern of motor unit recruitment and the cumulative

exhaustion of ATP supply that causes growth from short, high-tension

movements.

I don't know if any of that even makes sense, but its worth a shot--

*lol*

man

Birmingham, AL